Cricket Thread: Twenty20 World Cup

Remove this Banner Ad

Vader said:
It's really not. It's a fairly basic requirement.

Here's a list of Australian #6 batsmen, by average - minimum qualification 20 innings at #6:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...=innings;team=2;template=results;type=batting

This list has only 14 players, of which 7 averaged 40+. Every one of those players had test careers which lasted 8+ years. None of the batsmen who averaged less than 40 lasted more than 6 years, most were 5 or less.

Reducing the minimum qualification from 20 innings to 10 adds a further 27 players:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...=innings;team=2;template=results;type=batting

Of these, only 6 average 40+, with 21 averaging less than 40.

The conclusion here is that players are given time to establish themselves, and those who can't average 40+ are moved on (or shuffled to another position in the batting order - e.g. Katich), while those who can are kept around for much longer.

** Note that these averages (and career lengths) are for innings batted at #6. They do not include innings batted in other positions.
Click to expand...
Your stats actually help prove my point.
Those players you mentioned ended up becoming legends of our country. Their averages show how good they were and why they were moved up the order into prime batting positions.

If we have a number 6, who stays at number 6, averaging 40 he moves into number 8 of what is a very formidable list of cricketers.
History says most sides would be lucky to have someone that good that far down the list except for when we have prodigies joining the side for the first time.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

1990crow said:
Your stats actually help prove my point.
Those players you mentioned ended up becoming legends of our country. Their averages show how good they were and why they were moved up the order into prime batting positions.

If we have a number 6, who stays at number 6, averaging 40 he moves into number 8 of what is a very formidable list of cricketers.
History says most sides would be lucky to have someone that good that far down the list except for when we have prodigies joining the side for the first time.
Click to expand...
Good ones average 40+. Those who don't, don't stay in the position/team very long - they join the conga line of players who weren't quite good enough.
 
1990crow said:
Head averages 40 plus.
You seem to be going around in circles to prove Head won't make it, despite the stats suggesting hes actually doing pretty well for a number six.
Click to expand...
Head averages less than 30 when he's not playing a bunch of District standard cricketers (i.e. Sri Lanka).
 
Generally I care heaps less about cricket every year, a lot of other people are the same. I have zero interest in women's cricket.

Head got a load of scores 20-40. There were a lot of innings where he was the 2nd/3rd highest scorer for us. This is one of the reasons the selectors and supporters think he can do it, not far away. That and the fact no one else is putting their hand up.
 
Vader said:
Head averages less than 30 when he's not playing a bunch of District standard cricketers (i.e. Sri Lanka).
Click to expand...
Steve Waugh was averaging 30 after his first 26 tests.

There's a million cricketers who took a while to find their feet.
 
Mego Red said:
Steve Waugh was averaging 30 after his first 26 tests.

There's a million cricketers who took a while to find their feet.
Click to expand...
That's true... but I just don't see Head having the mental strength that Waugh demonstrated.

For every cricketer who "took a while to find their feet", there are 20 who took a while to go absolutely nowhere.
 
Vader said:
That's true... but I just don't see Head having the mental strength that Waugh demonstrated.

For every cricketer who "took a while to find their feet", there are 20 who took a while to go absolutely nowhere.
Click to expand...
Head's ability to bat for long periods to save games suggests that he has plenty of mental strength. Captaining the Redbacks would break a lesser player.
 
SydCrow said:
Head's ability to bat for long periods to save games suggests that he has plenty of mental strength. Captaining the Redbacks would break a lesser player.
Click to expand...
His inability to turn 50s into 100s suggests mental weakness, and/or a lack of fitness - neither of which is conducive to having a long test career.

He probably will have a reasonably long test career - but only because Australia's batting stocks haven't been this weak since the early 1980s (in the era following the rogue South African tour). He wouldn't have got a look in at any time between 1989-2014. That he's set to be a mainstay of our team for the future is a condemnation of just how bad our batting stocks have become.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Head is mentally strong but technically weak imho

You never feel like he's really "in" - slightly loose technique and always a chance to get out whether he's in the 20s, 40s, 60s. Never set.

Whereas when someone like Smith is set you feel like he could bat for days
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Head is mentally strong but technically weak imho

You never feel like he's really "in" - slightly loose technique and always a chance to get out whether he's in the 20s, 40s, 60s. Never set.

Whereas when someone like Smith is set you feel like he could bat for days
Click to expand...
Look, I've said similar in the past, but hasn't he shown in the last 12 months or so that this could be changing?
 
Mego Red said:
Look, I've said similar in the past, but hasn't he shown in the last 12 months or so that this could be changing?
Click to expand...
I think he's been a good player for a long time. I think he should be in the test team. Has his limitations but so do all of the alternatives.

Not sure he's improving much though? Maybe a little more circumspect outside off stump now.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
I think he's been a good player for a long time. I think he should be in the test team. Has his limitations but so do all of the alternatives.

Not sure he's improving much though? Maybe a little more circumspect outside off stump now.
Click to expand...
I feel like he's converted more 50s to 100s recently, which seems like a concentration thing.
 
Mego Red said:
I feel like he's converted more 50s to 100s recently, which seems like a concentration thing.
Click to expand...
Well he's only made 2x Test 100s, one of which was the 161 he made against the District Club standard Sri Lankan team, back in February 2019.

Since then, he's played 18 innings, for the following results:
  • 10+ - 14
  • 50+ - 4
  • 100+ - 1
  • Not Out - 2
To be clear, if he scored 100+, then that's counted as 10+, 50+, and 100+.

Notes:
  • He's very good at getting a start, failing to make double digits only 4 times from 18 innings.
  • He consistently gets out between 10-49, with 10 of his 18 innings ending in this range. He gets in, but then finds a way of getting himself out, before making a real contribution to the scoreboard.
  • A 1-in-4 conversion rate of 50s to 100s isn't great, but it's not awful. Good batsmen convert at around 1-in-3. Really good batsmen convert at almost 1-in-2 (Smith has converted 27 of 58).
  • His most recent 100 was almost 2 years ago, in the 2019 Boxing Day Test (vs New Zealand).
  • He only played 5 innings in 2020, failing to reach 50 in any of them.
  • COVID has really screwed with Australia's Test cricket program. Head only played 3 tests in 2020, and none (so far) in 2021. That doesn't give us a lot of recent data points to work with.
Given that he hasn't scored a century in almost 2 years, and hasn't played a Test Match in nearly 11 months, I'm not sure how you can argue that "he's converted more 50s to 100s recently". Maybe at Shield level? Definitely not at Test Match level.

Source:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings
 
For purposes of comparison, here are the relative records of Steve Smith and Travis Head. One is a world class batsman, the other is barely Test Match standard.

Smith
Innings: 139
50+ scores: 58
100+ scores: 27

Smith reaches 50 every 2.4 innings.
He reaches 100 every 5.1 innings.
He converts 46.6% of his 50s into 100s.

Head
Innings: 31
50+ scores: 9
100+ scores: 2

Head reaches 50 every 3.4 innings.
He reaches 100 every 15.5 innings.
He converts only 22.2% of his 50s into 100s.
 
Vader said:
For purposes of comparison, here are the relative records of Steve Smith and Travis Head. One is a world class batsman, the other is barely Test Match standard.
Click to expand...
Someone averaging 39.8 after 19 test matches isn't "barely test match standard," regardless of playing a couple of tests against a weaker team that everyone gets to play

Plenty of players will play more tests with a worse record than Head
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Someone averaging 39.8 after 19 test matches isn't "barely test match standard," regardless of playing a couple of tests against a weaker team that everyone gets to play

Plenty of players will play more tests with a worse record than Head
Click to expand...

Exactly, and Head still had to score those runs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
  • Poll
Mega Thread World Cup 2022 in Qatar
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
369
Views
13K
AFC979810
A
Cap
  • Locked
The Cookers/Conspiracy thread
Replies
1
Views
353
relapse
relapse
Cap
The Wine thread
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
3K
Cap
Cap
Punchy Bassett
The Bakery Thread.
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
arrowman
arrowman
Mutineer
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics Thread Part 4
387 388 389 390 391
Replies
10K
Views
124K
Scorpus
Scorpus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top